Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
43 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,507 Year: 18,543/19,786 Month: 963/1,705 Week: 215/518 Day: 39/50 Hour: 1/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Kurt Wise - A YAC and an old earth evolutionist?
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3763
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1 of 47 (63415)
10-30-2003 1:15 AM


Quoting something from a Fedmahn Kassad posting:
quote:
Have you ever seen the recent quote by Kurt Wise? I publicized it over at Theology.Web. Dr. Wise is a Creationist who studied under Stephen Gould. Here is what he wrote about the majority of the evidence: “I am a young-age creationist because the Bible indicates the universe is young. Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young for scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant.”

Wise (not to be confused with Wise) seems to be an interesting character, who seems to have kept a pretty low profile.

I don't know if this will go anywhere, but the above quote from Kurt Wise seemed to be worth it's own topic.

Moose

Added by edit: FK, could you supply a link to the Theology.Web topic?

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 10-30-2003]


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by a servant of Christ, posted 10-30-2003 12:29 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 3 by a servant of Christ, posted 10-30-2003 12:31 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Brad McFall, posted 10-30-2003 3:29 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 10 by MrHambre, posted 10-30-2003 6:44 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
a servant of Christ
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 47 (63458)
10-30-2003 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
10-30-2003 1:15 AM


Article by Kurt Wise on AiG-

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/313.asp

------------------
-chris


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-30-2003 1:15 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by NosyNed, posted 10-30-2003 1:18 PM a servant of Christ has not yet responded

  
a servant of Christ
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 47 (63459)
10-30-2003 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
10-30-2003 1:15 AM


http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1318.asp

Interview with Kurt Wise, linked from my first post here.

------------------
-chris

[This message has been edited by messenjaH, 10-30-2003]

[This message has been edited by messenjaH, 10-30-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-30-2003 1:15 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by a servant of Christ, posted 10-30-2003 12:41 PM a servant of Christ has not yet responded
 Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 10-30-2003 1:22 PM a servant of Christ has not yet responded
 Message 24 by Christian, posted 03-08-2006 5:26 PM a servant of Christ has responded

  
a servant of Christ
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 47 (63461)
10-30-2003 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by a servant of Christ
10-30-2003 12:31 PM


From the forums here:
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=7&t=52&p=1 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=7&t=52&p=1">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=7&t=52&p=1

{Fixed link to go to page 1 of the topic. It had been a link to page 5, which doesn't exist unless you are using 5 message pages. It is the "Steve Austin and Kurt Wise" topic, started by Joe Meert. - Adminnemooseus, 5/14/06}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fixed link.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by a servant of Christ, posted 10-30-2003 12:31 PM a servant of Christ has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8863
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 5 of 47 (63465)
10-30-2003 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by a servant of Christ
10-30-2003 12:29 PM


Well, Messenjah, that article is at least short. It seems to say that the 'best' evidnence for creationism is:
1) The bible
2) ID

Both of these have been beat to death on this forum. If that is the 'best' evidence then there isn't much is there?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by a servant of Christ, posted 10-30-2003 12:29 PM a servant of Christ has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8863
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 6 of 47 (63467)
10-30-2003 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by a servant of Christ
10-30-2003 12:31 PM


Messenjah??
Is there supposed to be any content at all in that interview?

Could you copy what you think is really the meat of it and post it here? I read it and see no real content at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by a servant of Christ, posted 10-30-2003 12:31 PM a servant of Christ has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3317 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 7 of 47 (63481)
10-30-2003 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
10-30-2003 1:15 AM


The science revolves more around an actual time INTERVAL and less on what projected point constructions "metrically" are made post-Einstein rotationally not imcommersurable individually. THE EARTH obviously IS NOT a "time". Two process on Earth however may provide a "distance" spatially that time can be linearized from whether or not understood as a form of space and time or space-time with the concomittant mathmetical purity. Maybe Wise meant that an "old earth and universe" can not be transmorgified into the time frame of an Ussherite Newtonian Trinitarian. Any way the ellipse and the circle are different figures even if a Marxist may claim THE SAME economics on its ba(sis).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-30-2003 1:15 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by NosyNed, posted 10-30-2003 3:32 PM Brad McFall has responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8863
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 8 of 47 (63482)
10-30-2003 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Brad McFall
10-30-2003 3:29 PM


Could you try again Brad? That at least was short. But it doesn't appear to a have a darn thing to do with anything at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Brad McFall, posted 10-30-2003 3:29 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Brad McFall, posted 10-30-2003 4:05 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3317 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 9 of 47 (63487)
10-30-2003 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by NosyNed
10-30-2003 3:32 PM


Well, I went to mess's link and got more out of this following than my own guess:
quote:
'For example,' heWISE says, 'I realized that evolution traditionally looked at organisms as being built from DNA. You hear terms like "organisms will struggle to preserve their genetic material into the next generation". I realized that's not the way God looks at things. That's not the way He looks at us. We are more than just a bunch of DNA.'

Wise is very wise and ABSOLUTELY correct about this. I will leave the philosophy of time in evolution to another time. I ran into a barrier educationally because I ALSO KNEW THIS. How did I know? Because my grandfather was an "evolutionist" of the generation BEFORE DNA. Then biologists were looking for change and EVOLUTION in terms of smaller and smaller organisms. But sometime (I can likely guess the date of the quote I have will be in the 1940s) biologists (first molecular biologists and today just about all of em) started constructively arguing about (amongst themselves) not from any idividual organism but from molecules themselves (see Crick on RNA for instance). My grandfather may have referred to this state of science in biology as the "disembodied eye". He, nonetheless continued to view science in the pre-1930 view and THAT is the biology I picked up on THAT WAS NOT BEING TAUGHT IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS. The view of change STARTING from gene information transfer sounds like it solves the questions that my grandfather for instance raised in his thesis and one may think that the future of molecular biology will and or did answer some of the insights being derived before (the synthesis?) but at least this is NOT how "God" views change but rather how biologists have changed in thier somewhat myopic view collectivity (if I was to speak for the bunch of sour grapes). I know this because my Mother who also grew up with my Grandfather does not understand the molecular biology position except by name but I do by dint of popular science. Matchette had quoted Darlington in 1949 in terms of Darlington SUGGESTING this change of view in evolutionary discourse but in fact it was a less certain thing than the difference of opinion between biometricians and mendelians. Oh well this is longer.

Here is a quote from a paper from Stan that was out of his thesis- see for yourself-

"It is now generally agreed the total characteristics of the whole gene complex produces the total characteristics which make up the individual. The mutation of a 'normal' gene to what we know as 'vestigial' has resulted in a large nomuber of changes in the morphological and physiological make-up of the resulting individual. This study has demonstrated that those morphological changes which have been measured are affected at different periods of development. This suggests that the action of the vestigial gene is highly varied and extends over the greater part of the developmental period. Whether or not all of the effects catalogued above are to be attributed to the change in the one 'vestigial' gene is open to question."

"One objection to this sort of hypothesis is that no inhibiting effect on wing length can be detected in the heterozygotes which carry one vestigial gene and its normal allelomorph. It would be necessary to assume that some substance was produced by the normal gene in such excess as to entirely overcome the inhibitory effects of the vestigial gene. Another objection is that the supposition of the production of an inhibitory substance involves an addtion of some sort. Practically all gene mutations result in some sort of deficiency, at least in their somatic expression. Most of them are recessives. It may be more logical, therefore, to assume that the normal gene produces a substance which promotes wing formation, and that the mutation from 'normal' to 'vestigial' has resulted in a loss of part of the governing mechanism, so that the 'wing-extender' is not produced in sufficient amount in vestigial at average and low temperatures to produce more than a rudimentary or 'vestigial' wing."

"This study has necessitated an hypothesis to the effect that some sex-linked accessory factors are present which influence the action of teh vestigial gene in its production of wing length and which account for the marked diffences between the sexes. If such is the case, it is not unreasonable to suppose that they may also affect the productin of 'secondary characteristics.'"

"We may assume that the normal gene, interacting with all the other genes, brings about the production of an excess of this substance which stimulates wing development, and the one normal gene brings about the production of enough to stimulate normal wing development. The mutation of the normal gene to the vestigial gene may have resulted in a deficiency of this substance so that the threshold value of wing formation is barely exceeded at average temeperature."

Wise is correct. The contrary is wrong. Dont get me started on how this deficiency is the psychiatrists lithium unbalanced in the IQ controversy for then my answer will be even shorter- all else is wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by NosyNed, posted 10-30-2003 3:32 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

    
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 397 days)
Posts: 1494
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 10 of 47 (63506)
10-30-2003 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
10-30-2003 1:15 AM


If you love your Bible, don't cut it to shreds
From the interview with Wise :
quote:
At one stage he even took a pair of scissors to a Bible, and started cutting out the sections which would have to be discarded if evolution was true, with its long ages for the earth. He found that there wouldn't be enough of the Bible left for it to hold together.

'To accept the entire evolutionary model would mean one would have to reject Scripture. And because I came to know Christ through Scripture I couldn't reject it.' At that point he decided his only option was to reject evolutionary theory.


That is absolutely the most preposterous thing I've ever read. This man is quite simply insane.

I'm no believer, but I can't imagine how evolutionary theory, the notion of common descent, could even conceivably force someone to discard a mature faith. Scientists like Terry Gray and Kenneth Miller seem to reconcile the two quite easily. The image of science ripping the Bible apart with scissors is a sick, paranoid fundamentalist fantasy.

And the fact that Wise concludes that his "only option" was to reject evolutionary theory shows how sorely lacking his imagination truly is. He couldn't, for example, stop reading scripture with such a materialistic outlook? He couldn't, perhaps, have come to understand the more spiritual meaning of his faith?

------------------
The bear thought his son could talk in space about the time matter has to rotate but twisted heaven instead.
-Brad McFall


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-30-2003 1:15 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Brad McFall, posted 10-30-2003 6:57 PM MrHambre has not yet responded
 Message 12 by roxrkool, posted 10-31-2003 12:46 AM MrHambre has responded
 Message 19 by Garrett, posted 02-17-2006 10:58 AM MrHambre has not yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3317 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 11 of 47 (63510)
10-30-2003 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by MrHambre
10-30-2003 6:44 PM


Re: If you love your Bible, don't cut it to shreds
It's only "preposterous" from today's way of learning and haveing looked at things. This kind of thought is something that my Grandmother still "scoffs" at but the fact that SHE DOES so SCOFF porves some truth in its existence. Others today dont even go this far as you may be in the number. Who knows maybe you are a Saint. Atomism based on what we have QM IS NOT the particulation that popularized made the posture no longer "pre". Your comparison seems a little broad to me. Ya know I couldnt understand how it could cause a rejection either which is why I read little bit about the life of Price. In the context of his day as a strugling writer it did make sense because he did *SEE* the missing use of logic in geology. You question how in that time that could cause one to deject evo stuff?? anyway- as soon as I learned that he and DS JORDAN couldnt come to terms I realized that this was the same "not coming to terms" of me and Kraig Adler who had told me that Jordan was given a MASTERS from Cornell WITHOUT completing his undergraduate. So...the only differenece was a generationaly thing which if biology as my analogy went and still does seem to go comes out as STILL a biological misreading of Mendel not any which way but loosed readings of the Bible yet even this is not what you raised for you asked why the scoffing would be not in support of the same to which even this I think if with less vituperation could be drawn in c/e talk as the teaching of the difference of life in terms of the difference of molecules and atoms may indeed be science and still even not emotionally reacted to developed by any one of any faith, mature or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by MrHambre, posted 10-30-2003 6:44 PM MrHambre has not yet responded

    
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1182 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 12 of 47 (63556)
10-31-2003 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by MrHambre
10-30-2003 6:44 PM


Re: If you love your Bible, don't cut it to shreds
To me it's sad that Kurt Wise felt he had to make such a choice. As Mr. Hambre stated, plenty of other people hold the bible in one hand and science in the other without making such choices.

Kurt Wise is imprisoned in a cell of his own making. I think there's a scientist screaming to be set free.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by MrHambre, posted 10-30-2003 6:44 PM MrHambre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by MrHambre, posted 10-31-2003 6:18 AM roxrkool has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Brad McFall, posted 10-31-2003 12:00 PM roxrkool has not yet responded

    
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 397 days)
Posts: 1494
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 13 of 47 (63578)
10-31-2003 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by roxrkool
10-31-2003 12:46 AM


A Word to the Wise Guy
I'm not even sure he's a scientist. Did you see how he says that "creation is not a theory, it's a fact"? I guess his definition of 'theory' follows the usual creationist line: 'a wild guess that's as good as any other.'

This line is priceless too:

quote:
[Wise] is pleased to see the trend towards a presuppositional approach to the presentation of creationism (as opposed to the 'evidential' approach).
So he's pleased that creationists are now abandoning any hope of competing with conventional science in the only arena that counts, namely the lab. He'd rather they merely assert that the 'foundational assumption' that Scripture should be used as a science book is just as valid as the one that depends on a large body of hard-won knowledge gained through centuries of honest investigation.

It's because of this that science has to be based on methodological naturalism in the first place: you want to limit the amount of influence that people's foundational assumptions have on the process of empirical evidential inquiry. Ideally, the process should be neutral enough to allow people with a wide range of philosophical prejudices to arrive at the same conclusions.

------------------
The bear thought his son could talk in space about the time matter has to rotate but twisted heaven instead.
-Brad McFall


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by roxrkool, posted 10-31-2003 12:46 AM roxrkool has not yet responded

    
Brian
Member (Idle past 3244 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 14 of 47 (63579)
10-31-2003 7:11 AM


Is it possible that Kurt Wise and our 'Wise' (ye of the divine pictures)are one and the same?

Brian.


    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3317 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 15 of 47 (63640)
10-31-2003 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by roxrkool
10-31-2003 12:46 AM


Re: If you love your Bible, don't cut it to shreds
Yeah, like my brother Greg, but he doesnt know a whit about tracking the clade of the platypus and Randy's bird feather as one. The hex may be 5 .. but let me not speculate. I am not imprisoned in my Grandfather's VESTIGIAL wing cell as most others who dont understand any TWO topobiological cells for there are all kinds of genes yet no reliable defition of the thing that is targeted in drug discovery. What does my bro-choose INSTEAD- Chomksy's notion of natural language from a genetic program. If that was the general opnion the diveristy WOULD be limited to a particular cybernetic feedback signal circuit but the difference of the egg laying and non egg laying mammals IS more diverse than this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by roxrkool, posted 10-31-2003 12:46 AM roxrkool has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019